User talk:Leoboudv/Archive 2

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Canada Day[edit]

I congratulate You with Canada Day!
By talk way: if You wish to communicate friendly not concerning Wiki-projects You can use e-mail (look it at my user page).
Cheers! :) -- George Chernilevsky talk 07:03, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My stats[edit]

This is my stats as of July 19 from MGA73:

My stats on Wikipedia and wikicommons are listed on this useful page
  • 894 images as of July 21, 2010.
  • 896 images as of August 10, 2010.
  • 916 images as of August 29, 2010.
  • 919 images as of Sept 27, 2010.
  • 927 images as of May 20, 2011.
  • 938 images as of July 10, 2011.
  • 964 images as of Sept 11, 2011. (excludes reuploads)
  • 971 images as of Dec. 8, 2012.
  • 990 images as of Dec. 18, 2013. (including 19 images taken at UBC on Sept. 3, 2013)
  • 991 images as of Dec. 31, 2013
  • First registered Commons account: May 19, 2007.

File:Early 20th Century Inuit parka (UBC).jpg[edit]

What the museum says is one thing, the other ist, naturally summer skins are not thick as in winter. And the picture shows, these are very flat skins.--Kürschner (talk)

The best skin quality is in autumn and the beginning winter. Former we used the skins of young caribous, called pyshiks or pijiki (4-6 month or till one year old (called nebljujs)). This suit looks like young pijiki with skin from adult animal at the hood. Furs from elder raindeers are not for hard wear (if your English is better than mine, you should write it in the article. The mention of source I will put to it). --Kürschner (talk) 06:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(you could answer here) That should be okay. I only know the skins of adult winter raindeers. The summer skin is short with compact underwool. My very best book for this describes the hair-length of each furred animal exactly - but not from caribous. I could look in much of my other literature, but I think, this should be ok (but nevertheless, it looks for me more like skins from young caribou calves... ;-) - Next holiday in Vanvouver.) --Kürschner (talk) 07:27, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dear me: winter hair: on the sides 5 cm, back 9 cm, cross 10 cm., neck till 30 cm. The book is good, but the reader... --Kürschner (talk) 07:50, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the additional commentary by you is sufficient for the parka's description. Most people don't care too much about the exact thickness or thinness of the caribou skin, so don't worry. They just want to know what material the parka is made of. And if it is made of 2 layers--as the UBC museum description says--then this is an added bonus. There are many many displays in the museum and I almost missed the parka which is placed in a large glass panel case. But I am glad I took the picture of the parka...and hope someone can use it for a good cause. Best regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:13, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I used it here: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelzarten#Rentier_.28Nordamerika_.3D_.E2.80.9EKaribu.E2.80.9C.29_oder_Pijiki --Kürschner (talk) 08:46, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Images from Egypt Archive[edit]

Placed here --Leoboudv (talk) 04:04, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello from Paris[edit]

Hi Leoboudv

Long time ago i didn't gave news from me and i apologize for this lack of. Hope you're well and you've spent a good summer.

I was very busy with my work for several months and it will continue but i promise me to work again and also on wikimedia. I would thank you a lot for your last uploads. As usual, they're so precious and ever usefull for our work on wikipedia.

Pedubast's one is wonderful, really.

Have you others? In preparation?

Greetings from Paris,

Neithsabes (talk) 22:54, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Flickr review requests[edit]

Hello. To be fair I was not aware that the flickr upload tool I used was enough. My confusion actually stemmed from the fact that in the upload information, I was listed as the reviewer. As I'm not an admin or anyone of authority here, I wanted to make extra sure. Perhaps I should have asked at the help desk. I don't see the need of that discussion though, as a message would have done fine. So "i got the message" like you said. ;) As the the admin noted, I actually did stop when I saw his edit summary as then I realised I had been to cautious over any changes that the original author could have made on their account. Well, thanks for letting me know though. Have a nice evening too.Raintheone (talk) 20:54, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Change the license[edit]

Hello Leoboudv. What happened to that user from Flickr, the images were yesterday under license (cc-by-2.0). and now, change the license. --MyCanon (talk) 09:41, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This file, which was originally posted to Indafotó, was reviewed on 6 December 2011 by reviewer Lymantria, who confirmed that it was available there under the stated license on that date.

File:Great Patriotic War Monument in Shatki.jpg[edit]

Hello!

I think I missed a point:

Why do you use {{PD-RU-exempt}} for any war monuments in Russia? --High Contrast (talk) 09:35, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Milestone pictures[edit]

See here Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 21:11, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RfCU[edit]

Thank you for your support and kind words.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:09, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciation[edit]

Hi Leoboudv: I've just looked over your fabulous pictures. The ones of Lisa Brokop and of her costume in Wikipedia are fantastic. The picture of the costume is exceptionally striking. Thanks for all your help and Kind regards. KemiahKemiah (talk) 12:02, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Trusted user template[edit]

Thank you very much, Leoboudv, for think on me as a trusted user. I appreciate it. Ralgis 23:27, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An other 17th Dynasty Crown ?[edit]

Hi Leoboudv

I was looking for files or image of Nubkheperre on the web when i found this page [1] on Nicholas Reeves website.

I thought you will enjoy it also ;)

Greetings from Paris. Neithsabes (talk) 23:35, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Geograph image[edit]

Linking a geograph image --Leoboudv (talk) 02:10, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request[edit]

Hello, could you please delete the file File:Ninoy Aquino's "Testament from a Prison Cell".jpg rather than the file File:Ninoy Aquino's Testament from a Prison Cell.jpg? The later one is more focused and thus more clear. Please tell me if I need to do further application. Thanks! --Wildcursive (talk) 05:20, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the explanation! I now understand and will try to find other pictures.--Wildcursive (talk) 06:30, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I found another picture and upload it. Please check as this is not simply a picture of a book but something additional that contributed by the family who took it. I am a Taiwanese editor who is writing a new article en:People Power Revolution on Chinese Wikipedia. Thanks! --Wildcursive (talk) 01:25, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot for your reference! This case looks mixing different elements and is a little bit complex for me. I am still in progress to realize the boundary of what I can upload and what I can not. Anyway, it's interesting to know friends from Canada and Netherlands on Wiki.--Wildcursive (talk) 04:13, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I got it. I highly appreciate your very quick and kind help! --Wildcursive (talk) 07:52, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Images[edit]

Hi Leoboudv. Thanks. Good images! Best Regards, --JMCC1 (talk) 00:59, 25 February 2013 (UTC) Ok. Thank you for the message.[reply]

http://www.flickr.com/photos/cfccreates/8577114531/in/photostream, http://www.flickr.com/photos/leweb3/8261213300/in/photostream, and http://www.flickr.com/photos/financialtimes/8577541044/in/photostream[edit]

Hello Leoboudv, we once resolved a copyright ownership issue who owns the copyright of a CFC celebrity events photo posted on their flickr account (the organization or photography group), but also I'm concerned that many other celebrity parties/events (held by many organizations/corporations like CFC) flickr images taken by hired photography group(s) are vulnerable to potential deletion requests like the DR. Recently I found three similar cases of the issue, http://www.flickr.com/photos/cfccreates/8577114531/in/photostream, http://www.flickr.com/photos/leweb3/8261213300/in/photostream, and http://www.flickr.com/photos/financialtimes/8577541044/in/photostream. first and second cases are mostly same with File:Robert_Lantos.jpg case whose image descriptions mention the photographer(s) of the images (Rebecca Sapp, @francois). in last case, its image description does not mention the photographer(s), but EXIF data says Dianna Bonner/www.worldvisionphotos.co.uk. Can this three images also be counted as the organizations paid photography firm(s) for its services and own the image rights and/or may we need to ask the flickr accounts about copyright ownership of the images indivisually? --Puramyun31 (talk) 17:40, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Beautiful images[edit]

Hi Leoboudv. Beautiful images. Best regards from Madrid, --JMCC1 (talk) 10:44, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS waiting list and 1-2 other issues[edit]

Hi. I wonder why you not answer my long post, but now I've realized, that it seemed it was not saved...!!?!?!

In short: at first I thought your post were unfair critic - but the second reading showed me it wasn't so I didn't think so :). But I'm not an Egyptologist, so I'm not the right person depending your other points with the Flickr images. But I'm planning an international Network of Wikimedia Archaeologists - and hopefully in future we can work over all Wikis depending these Questions. Marcus Cyron (talk) 22:04, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cameroons that Saker laboured.jpg[edit]

Could you give an opinion about this file? I see that you added a note about dubious copyright status.

According to Flickr, the image comes from the same book from 1908 by Emily Saker which we were discussing in a deletion request somewhere. As the book was published in 1908, it is in the public domain in the United States.

For the source country (the United Kingdom), don't you think that it is likely that the image either was made by Emily Saker herself, or, if not by her, that the image is anonymous? If I remember correctly, I think that we concluded in one of the other deletion requests that it is unlikely that Emily Saker still was alive in 1943, but I can't remember where that discussion was. Do you remember where that other deletion discussion was held? I suspect that either {{PD-old-70}} or {{PD-UK-unknown}} is true, but it would be nice to hear your opinion too. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:47, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Freedom_of_Panorama#Armenia[edit]

Hello Leoboudv, thanks for your good news, but I wonder if Armenian FoP law forfeited Armenian copyright holders' right to control the usage of their FoP-covered works (Architectures, Sculptures... etc). What do you think? --Puramyun31 (talk) 07:00, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help. but how about this? User:Canoe1967 said "A copyright cannot and should not be taken by any government. It is an inalienable human right for creators worldwide." this is why I asked this question. --Puramyun31 (talk) 07:29, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Thanks for your answer. regards. --Puramyun31 (talk) 07:51, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How to best tag derivatives of flickr uploads?[edit]

Hi, I see you've had to manually review and approve a couple of derivative flickr images I've uploaded. For my last one I tried to copy what you did here, only to have FlickreviewR complaining no source. So, how should I tag such images to have FlickreviewR approve them without having to bother you or others? Guess I should have known without asking, as I used to be a admin around here, but it seems I've forgotten more than I ever learned :) Finn Rindahl (talk) 11:02, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Flickrreviewer will not pass cropped or edited images. But the "no source" reaction can be avoided by adding "Original source: <Flickr link>". That's the way I usually do these things, although Leoboudv's way is nice as well. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 06:52, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How to file a mass DR request[edit]

See this link here. --Leoboudv (talk) 22:10, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer tool[edit]

Why you don't use Rilke's image reviewing tool? It helps notifying users if review fails, and automatically gives you three links for [Change license]For when licesen on Commons and original source does not match [License+]When Commons file and original file has no problem, and there is no issues(like FlickrWashing), so you think it is OK to mark reviewed and [License-]When there is no source, copyright violation, unacceptable licenses. You can use this tool by putting following lines on your javascript page: 

importScript('User:Rillke/LicenseReview.js'); //

And, you should mark No source indicated when flickr link is unavailable. Thanks for your reviewing and have a nice day. --레비Revi 09:52, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Next time, I'll consider marking 'no source' when a flickr link is unavailable. I personally have the npd and nsd tag option--and no source--but did not use it on a certain picture you reviewed. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 10:21, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Philips Arena.JPG[edit]

Hi, I saw your copyvio nomination in which you suspect copyvio because of the circumstances. There is a trick to become more sure in most of these cases:

I hope this trick will help you to do your good work even better. Jcb (talk) 11:13, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Flicker to Commons[edit]

Hello: Yes, I can find all the links of the photos on Flicker and show as previous. But do not know how to ask for a new order to "flickrreview". Can you help me do it? Thank you very much. Best Regards.Adolfobrigido (talk) 10:19, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello: I have already put the "links" of all the images and the type of permission. What should I do now?. Please help me because I have little experience. Thank you very much. Best Regards.Adolfobrigido (talk) 13:17, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I think I've already done the work. I do not know if I've done well, I did what I could. Thank you very much again. When you can, please tell me how I've done the work. Best regards.Adolfobrigido (talk) 22:15, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again: I think in your last post you said that I still had some work to do. Just then clicked on the link you gave me and I saw the images that you meant, but now can not find them. Could you send it again? Sorry for the inconvenience and thank you very much for everything.Adolfobrigido (talk) 16:55, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Uf, what weight relieves me. Next time I'll go with more care and raising fewer images. Thank you very much. If not for me you would have deleted all and foulbrood worse, had not learned anything. Thank you. Best regards.Adolfobrigido (talk) 20:36, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Derivative works[edit]

No opposition to your deletion requests of my photos, but I really don't get what derivative works' policies applied here mean. Commons:Derivative works really doesn't help. For example, if I take a photo of Times Square and it contains several logos of trademarks, or if I take a photo of a public park/playground with a tiny model of Mickey Mouse in it, am I allowed to upload them to Commons and license them with a free license?

This is to avoid copyright violations in my future uploads (as I have a pile of photos in my computer and want to contribute them here, not counting those transferred from Flickr). Quenhitran (talk) 06:47, 19 July 2014 (UTC) Please reply on my talk page[reply]

Also, many of my Flickr uploads got stuck here at Category:Flickr images needing human review, I've already used Flickr2Commons for those works and all the links/sources were filled in automatically, why couldn't the bot find them? Quenhitran (talk) 06:49, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • If its a small image of a copyrighted object or the copyrighted image is not the primary object in the photo, it should be OK. But in this DR most of the images focus on the copyrighted object which means that Commons cannot keep it. Like this This is a modern banner and the studio which created it would sue Commons if it found out about this copyright violation. Finally, in this image the picture focuses on the copyrighted poster and the poster clearly dominates most people's view of the picture and is the main item in the photo so Commons cannot keep it either. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:49, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well thank you for your answers, but you didn't seem to get the gist of my second question. I understand that the bot cannot determine whether or not the images violate the regulations on derivative works or the freedom of panorama, but it should be able to detect the original licenses of images on Flickr (CC-BY or CC-BY-SA). Many of my Flickr uploads are originally available under CC-BY or CC-BY-SA 2.0, but the bot still stated that it cannot determine. Probably there is some problems with the server where the bot's running, it's becoming unreliable these days. As a reviewer, please take your time reviewing images left in Category:Flickr images needing human review. Thanks, Quenhitran (talk) 10:59, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
I must say, you are dedicated tireless to your work her, for many years. Thanks  ;) Geagea (talk) 02:42, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Eric Dane at 7th Annual Chrysalis Butterfly Ball 2008.jpg[edit]

Please be more careful when reviewing files from Flickr. The file's metadata and even the description on Flickr clearly state that the file was taken by Alexandra Wyman and grabbed from WireImage, meaning that the license selected by "Ash90291" is of course completely invalid. Thanks, —LX (talk, contribs) 21:41, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Admin noticeboard[edit]

This is at COM:AN

Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 23:19, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Korean pop images at LR[edit]

Have a look at User_talk:-revi#LR_question. I was going to review some of these, but I don't see free licenses at any of the sources so far... INeverCry 05:29, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have seen the Korean images but I can't read the Korean license so I don't want to mark them. However, tistory definitely seems unfree. revi should fail them since can read Korewan and is an Admin. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 07:17, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question[edit]

My dear Leoboudv, what would be you saying as a seasoned license reviewer if I were to upload US Treasury Secretary Jack Lew in Kyiv, Meeting with Minister of Finance Natalie Jaresko, Jan. 28, 2015 with two licenses: CC-BY-ND-2.0 since it lists it plus PD-USGov since it is a US State Dep. work? Best, --Nabak (talk) 03:58, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS permissions queues & Mum[edit]

Hello Leoboudv. You are receiving this message as a license reviewer. As you know, OTRS processes a large amount of tickets relating to image releases (called "permissions"). As a license reviewer, you may have the skills necessary to contribute to this team. If you are interested in learning more about OTRS or to volunteer please visit Meta-Wiki. Tell your friends! Thank you. Rjd0060 18:44, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RFA[edit]

Hello Leoboudv,

Do you agree to be nominated to administrator? -- Geagea (talk) 03:06, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Admin INeverCry has asked me this too last year but I have to say No because I don't have time for the responsibilities of being an Admin. Sorry. I have a full time job and I'm content with marking images and asking other Admins to deal with problematic uploaders/copyright issues. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 04:40, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that dedicated user, hard worker, experienced so many years as a reviewer and together with that humble and cautious in his work, can be good addition to the admin team. Anyway, think about it and let me know if you change your mind. -- Geagea (talk) 05:14, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Flickr statistic[edit]

Note this statistic from flickr. --Leoboudv (talk) 22:18, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Russian stamps again[edit]

It may be of interest to you to provide some input base on your Russian expertise at this undeletion request: Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests#Undeletion request for postal cards in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category: Postcards by Peter Emilevich Bendel. Ww2censor (talk) 09:44, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I thought you had some Russian knowledge to make some knowledgeable comments. Thanks anyway. Ww2censor (talk) 13:25, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question by Fauvirt[edit]

Hi! Are you sure that you "confirmed that it was available on Picasa Web Albums under the above license on that date" by these pictures? Because the album have the name: "Kézfogásaim", what means "My handshakes"... I am in correspondence with Tibor Végh, so I am sure that he is not the author of these images... Can you examine the decision reviewed by these pictures, please?... Thank you, Fauvirt (talk) 11:57, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I'll try to ask the Administrators. Fauvirt (talk) 10:26, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

{{Polish KPRM files}}[edit]

Leoboudv, {{Polish KPRM files}} is not a license template, it is a source template, yy edits like thisyou are removing a license template from the file and can cause file deletion. Please add {{Polish KPRM files}} but do not remove {{PD-author|Chancellery of the Prime Minister of Poland}}. --Jarekt (talk) 01:14, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Szigeti.png[edit]

the picture is of 1950, who is the photographer, what is the PD ? --Goesseln (talk) 13:46, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment: The license was {{Cc-by-2.0}} at upload in 2014 which means it is free for commercial use provided the source is credited. The photographer is not named but the source is clearly trustworthy. The license was later changed to include Non-Commercial and no-Derivative use restrictions....and today is not free but it was passed in 2014 and is considered passed for life on Wikicommons. I don't know who the photographer was. I mark images based on the license at upload and if the source is trustworthy. It is quite possible that the photographer worked for the Texas Library or donated the rights to the library since it was taken in 'Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas.' Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:06, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are several other images from this source on Commons and they passed review. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:13, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Puta files[edit]

I would hold off on spending your time reviewing the Roger Puta images. They're all already OTRS confirmed (see {{RogerPuta}}), so I'm hoping to have that template replace the 'license review needed' template for the several thousand photos in the collection. Cheers, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:54, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment: That would be a relief! Zhuyifei1999 runs the flickrreview bot and you could post a message on his talkpage asking if this could be done. Everytime someone uploads the Roger Puta images from flickr, they end up in the human review needed category since the flickr license is PD Mark (PDM) but the OTRS permission is valid as Admin James Woodward informed me here. So, the images are essentially public domain in this case as the OTRS message states. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:33, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I usually manage to replace the PDM with the proper template within a few minutes when I upload one, but that's not always the case. There was just a mass transfer of ~3,000 images from the collection; the uploader will be putting the proper template on when they recover from the flu. Thanks as always for all your license review work; it's much appreciated. Cheers, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 15:38, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker): I noticed all these images and was hoping someone would place a positive review tag on then seeing as there is an OTRS ticket on them all. It would be quite a marathon task to individually review them. Cheers Ww2censor (talk) 23:06, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year, Leoboudv![edit]

Happy New Year!

Leoboudv, a new year is like a blank book, the pen is in your hands. It is your chance to write a beautiful story for yourself! Happy New Year 2017. Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 18:21, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]



Commons:VIRIN & PD US Government[edit]

Virins: US Military licenses.

Mass Deletions through a VFC (Visual File Change)[edit]

Go here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Help:VisualFileChange.js&withJS=MediaWiki:VisualFileChange.js

Public Domain Mark licences[edit]

Hello Leoboudv

I've uploaded Flickr file under Public Domain Mark licenses, and I know that this license isn't accepted on Wikimedia but the FLickr uploader is a member of US army, so an employe or officer of US government, it is possible to validate these files with a {{PD-USGov}} template ?

Here are files I upload: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]

Regards from France, --Glabb (talk) 00:37, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your rapidity.--Glabb (talk) 09:04, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PDM DR[edit]

This one & this RfC Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 21:44, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

resolved

Re: Enterprise Incident[edit]

I wish I could say "yes". What we have here for Star Trek came from eBay finds-photos sent to various newspapers by those connected with the program. I'm sure publicity photos for this episode were sent to newspapers and magazines, but I haven't seen anything like this that we could use turn up as yet. Not to say it won't happen-that depends on what Star Trek photos are being sold on eBay.

Searching eBay for them on a regular basis can help. When I do, I look at both current auctions and completed, because you can view the original, now closed auction where things like backs of photos with the information we need is. ;) I use Internet Archive for keeping links to the photos, along with front & back upload. The only thing to remember is that the dating for the photos has to be between 1966 and 1969-the series original run on NBC. After it got into syndication, Paramount became very diligent about using copyright notices for the photos.

The only other way I can think of for a PD photo from the episode would be to find an advertisement for Star Trek printed before 1978 with no notice that used an episode photo. With the syndication of the show, local television stations who purchased these packages may have used photos to promote themselves airing the series in newspapers or local television guides.

Regarding the way non-free photos are handled in television articles at en:WP, I wish there would be a "standard" which would allow a non-free image if no PD one is available for articles written about individual episodes from a television series. Since at least one person (likely more) took the time to write and source an article about a given episode of a program, it should be permitted for the sake of identification. The photo aids those reading the article by allowing them to see a scene, thus "connecting" them with what the article is written about. Can imagine many people saying "Oh, yeah-now I remember this!" which may not always be possible with just text alone. Just my thought--if there's enough well-sourced information for an article about it, that should mean a photo-one non-free if necessary-should be allowed. We hope (talk) 13:43, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you[edit]

File:North East Dundas Tramway, 1906 06 02 Insert 3 (14401325523).jpg

Thank you very much for spending nearly an hour on updating the licensing info on the Australian photographs of the North East Dundas Tramway and the Sandfly Colliery Tramway on 27 May 2017. --NearEMPTiness (talk) 20:38, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notification about possible deletion[edit]

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Affected:

And also:

Yours sincerely, Guanaco (talk) 21:40, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PD US 1923 to 1977 images[edit]

{{PD-US-no notice}} license

Copyright status of works by US subnational governments[edit]

See link above.

Reviewed photographs from Flickr with dead links[edit]

Please avoid marking photographs with perfectly valid Flickr sources as having no source. These are correctly, and officially, reviewed and are not appropriate for deletion just because the source page has changed or been taken down. If there are reasons to delete such files, a DR is required. --Fæ (talk) 12:43, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • I won't mark the third photograph in this category but can't decide the situation anyway since I am not an Admin. Its unfortunate the images were reviewed after the sources were deleted. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 18:08, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. If you check the history, the files were automatically image reviewed soon after upload, which could only have happened when the source was available. --Fæ (talk) 19:42, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tell Rifaat images[edit]

, , and were all licensed under Creative Commons. What do you mean there is no "show more" button? There clearly is one for all 3 videos. This may be a problem on your end. I think it's best for a team to check the copyright status of files instead of a single person checking hundreds of images. This way, there would be more transparency.

Also, this KurdWatch video was clearly licensed under Creative Commons. Other videos by the same channel may not be, but this one clearly is. Editor abcdef (talk) 08:48, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment: There is no CC BY license mentioned for this video clip here since there is no 'Show More' Option. 'Sort By' is not Show more and does not show a youtube license. Even this Halab clip clearly shows a license. Hopefully an Admin can locate the license as he/she will decide this Deletion Request. Goodnight, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:57, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but this seem to be a problem on your end. There is clearly a "show more" button below the bread video, and below it is the Creative Commons license. You may have been using the non-classic version of Youtube, or the mobile version, or whatever, but something is not right. If you don't trust me, you can ask a third-party to verify this further. Editor abcdef (talk) 10:59, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template use within LicenseReview template[edit]

Let me first thank you very much for reviewing lots of the licenses for the waarneming.nl and observation.org -images uploaded by BartBotje. However, I noticed there was a little problem in the resulting html when the Waarneming.nl template is used as the site-parameter to the LicenseReview template instead of an url .. For example : [7]

{{LicenseReview|site={{Waarneming.nl|14773155}}|user=Leoboudv|date=2017-08-29}}

I changed the rest to versions simply stating the url to the image. Maybe this is a template issue ?. Can you please prevent this in the future ?. Thanks a lot and keep up the good work ! Bj.schoenmakers (talk) 19:32, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jewellery of Khenmet[edit]

Hi Leoboudv. Good image! For this image, see Tomb Treasures of the Late Middle Kingdom: The Archaeology of Female Burials [8]. Best regards, --JMCC1 (talk) 05:24, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion[edit]

Thanks for suggestion/ I now load up pictures which include a time stamp like this one. The picture has the timestamp at bottom left. I can then crop once the evidence has been checked. Thanks for your help. Cheers Victuallers (talk) 07:03, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tasnim images[edit]

Just a quick heads up but I see you gave File:Mohsen Hashemi.jpg a good review but you forgot, as I have also done on occasions, to remove the category:Tasnimnews review needed template. Cheers Ww2censor (talk) 18:03, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see you gave a load of Tasnim images good reviews but again forgot to remove the category:Tasnimnews review needed template. Ww2censor (talk) 23:46, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are right. I don't know why that category doesn't disappear! I will try to remember. With so many images to mark, its easy to forget this small thing. I hope you were not inconvenienced. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 02:54, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah giving a good review by script does not remove that category. You have to do it manually after your review. You had done all except one, so I removed it using "Perform batch task" replacing it with a space, so no real problem. Then I cleared out the last image too. Ww2censor (talk) 13:11, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some baklava for you![edit]

Thanks for your help, have a snack Victuallers (talk) 11:17, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Etiquetando imagen[edit]

Me expreso en español, ya que no sé hacerlo correctamente en otro idioma. La plantilla que has colocado en File:Moreno Calderón.jpg es improcedente. El archivo indica que la fuente (source) es la Biblioteca Virtual del Ministerio de Defensa. No se especifica quién es el autor porque este es desconocido (unknown), y así se indica. Y se informa expresamente de que la licencia con la que está publicada es Dedicación de Dominio Público CC0 1.0 Universal. Por consiguiente, la plantilla no tiene sentido.

Si quieres cuestionar la presencia de la imagen, puedes abrir una página de debate al respecto. El procedimiento "ultrarrápido" de siete días no es procedente. Su utilización constituye un abuso.--Chamarasca (talk) 21:17, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disculpas aceptadas. Todos cometemos errores. Saludos desde la vieja Europa.--Chamarasca (talk) 17:28, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
Thanks for the many, many license reviews - you're making a heroic effort! GRuban (talk) 13:24, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OGL License[edit]

{{OGL3}}

License laundering[edit]

I thought you should be aware, I blocked a major license launderer today as a result of this: Commons:Deletion requests/Photos from plus.google.com/u/0/photos/108486439348393922354. The Flickr account is blacklisted, and if you see any images from that Google Plus account, they should be speedied. We can't trust anything this person says or uploads. Guanaco (talk) 23:52, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks Guanaco. This reminds me why I rarely mark images with a "tistory.com" source since I don't understand their licensing policies well and there is a language barrier. I occasionally mark images by uploaded by Puramyun but generally I don't mark these images at all. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:47, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

License review[edit]

Hello.

Could You confirm the license, please:
Marzenna Drab.JPG

Thank You very much

Artur Andrzej (talk) 19:23, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Admin's Barnstar
Thanks for your work. NdaniTV are releasibg freely licensed videos which I am screengrabbing. Your overcheck of the licence meand that good articles look more interesting. Like this AND we are creating lots of pix for others to exploit. Thanks for your help Victuallers (talk) 14:49, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re:This DR[edit]

✓ Done. Thanks. Regards. Anna (Cookie) (talk) 16:00, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mushroom review[edit]

I didn't know about the {{Mushroomreview}} template. I'll use VFC again to clean up these duplicate tags. Guanaco (talk) 00:08, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Copyright Watcher Barnstar
I'm not sure we'd ever get through all these license reviews without your help. Guanaco (talk) 00:18, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto. You're doing a great job.--GRuban (talk) 14:16, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mushroom copyvios[edit]

A lot of the old images are heavily in use on several projects, so I'm trying to replace them where possible, using CommonsDelinker like this. If you find them can you list them at DR instead of speedy, so I have a chance to do the replacement? Guanaco (talk) 06:27, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Milad Tower Category[edit]

Hi, I saw that you once deleted files in Category:Milad Tower. Yesterday I categorized files with Farsi names there. Would you please see the category again and delete or nominate violations per the last nomination? Best regards, MasoodHA (talk) 17:22, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tistory[edit]

Hi. I've been trying to help out with the license review backlog but I'm not sure how to approach all the images on Tistory because it's all in Korean and even with translations, I've got no idea how to navigate the website. All I know is there's usually a little icon in the corner that says the license the images have been released under, but are there any other pages I should check before passing it? Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:24, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't mark Tistory images since I cannot read Chinese or Korean. You should ask reviewer Explicit who marks these images Anarchyte. See this edits by him/her. The only other person I trust is uploader Puramyun31 who knows copyright. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:44, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tistory is definitely a tricky one because of the language barrier most reviewers face in reviewing the blogs. A starter kit I can offer is User:-revi/Tistory and Category:Tistory.com related deletion requests. Generally, there are three pages to check for any restrictions: the text on blog post itself, the guestbook (방명록) and a "notice" page, if it has one. Two main keywords you want to look for are "2차가공" (secondary processing) and "로고 삭제/로고 크롭" (logo removal/logo crop), as these are always followed by some form of "금지" (prohibited), which makes these not okay for Commons. These are sometimes written in English on the posts ("do not edit"), and when answering to a query in the guestbook, the photographer will respond with "[...] 안 됩니다" ([...] is not allowed). Also, it's also a good idea simply search the blog (whatever.tistory.com) on Commons and cross-check for reviews of older uploads from the same blog. You also free to ask me, -revi, and (presumably) Puramyun31 to give something a look. ℯxplicit 10:48, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) @Anarchyte: you might also find it useful to review Commons:Where is the license on various sites? if you don't already know about that page. It has a Tistory entry. Ww2censor (talk) 11:18, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I did. Thank you all! Anarchyte (work | talk) 02:00, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Place to ask questions on Copyright & Uncertain CC By SA license[edit]

See here: COM:VPC & {{Cc-by-sa-all}} Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 23:02, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question[edit]

Is this statement enough for this image to be considered in the public domain? Anarchyte (work | talk) 13:18, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

eldiario.es license[edit]

Hi,

I noticed that you have confirmed a lot of images from this site (eg. File:Concentración frente a la conselleria de Economía este jueves.jpg) as being CC-licensed. Looking at the license page at that site: http://www.eldiario.es/licencia/ I see the section: 

Estas condiciones tienen las siguientes excepciones:
- No se aplica a los contenidos (textos, gráficos, informaciones, imágenes...) publicados por eldiario.es procedentes de terceros que vayan firmados o sean atribuibles a agencias de información (EFE, Europa Press...) o a cualquier otra empresa diferente de Diario de Prensa Digital, S.L. Todos los derechos sobre estos contenidos quedan estrictamente reservados a su titular (la agencia) y, por tanto, no podrán ser reproducidos, distribuidos, transformados o comunicados públicamente sin el consentimiento expreso de su titular.

That (IMO) clearly states that third-party signed photos (not by "Diario de Prensa Digital, S.L.") are not covered by any CC license. Could you, please, comment on this?

My opinion is that (almost?) all content imported from this site should be deleted. Ankry (talk) 10:43, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't speak Spanish but trusted user Discasto has uploaded many many images from eldiario like this: File:Gabriel Rufián.jpg & File:Javi López está preocupado por la deriva antidemocrática que se cierne sobre Europa Foto.jpg. All 3 images have the same author: Sandra Lazaro. If you have a question, please ask him. I trust Discasto since he is a trusted user and speaks Spanish. I trust the person who speaks the local language and knows the local license there and that person is Discasto. If you have a question, contact Discasto first. If I cannot trust a Spanish trusted user, then I cannot trust anyone. I am about to sign out for bed in Canada, --Leoboudv (talk) 10:51, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I will. Ankry (talk) 13:04, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Derivatives[edit]

Hey Leoboudv, I just wanted to give you a heads up. I DR'ed a couple of the images you license reviewed because of derivative works in the background that may not be covered by the Tasnim News Agency CC release. The DR can be found here: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Freshman404. --Majora (talk) 06:54, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Admin?[edit]

Hello Leoboudv, I often see your name in my watchlist for various edits of yours, I also saw that it have already been asked to you if you could accept to be candidate to admin status, and that you answered that you did not have the time. As I see that you are currently quite active I wonder if you can reconsider your position, have you more time? can you accept a candidature now? we lacks of active administrators, and I think you are a good potential candidate. Christian Ferrer (talk) 21:14, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for the answer, and for all. Regards, Christian Ferrer (talk) 21:32, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Let me add my thanks, your help is invaluable! --GRuban (talk) 02:31, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tasnim News reviews[edit]

Please remember to remove the Category:Tasnimnews review needed from images that you review out of there. It is not an automated category and it will still be listed in the license review backlog until you remove it. I've gone ahead and removed all of the ones that have already been reviewed so far. Thanks. --Majora (talk) 05:19, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yeah, I know it doesn't get removed. It is easy to forget but equally easy to fix so it isn't that big of a deal. A search for incategory:"Tasnimnews review needed" AND -incategory:"License review needed" plus some visual file change magic and it is fixed in no time. I just wanted to let you know. Thanks. --Majora (talk) 05:31, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Reza Daneshmir - TEDxParsUniversity Speakers 2017(2).jpg[edit]

Hi, this is not an old photo. It was held on 2017 and they released these pictures with public domain license. So, what can I do? SlowManifesto (talk) 08:29, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment: Do you see this Flickr license table. Commons accepts the Attribution, Attribution-ShareAlike and Public Domain Dedication License (CCO) only. The license here is PD-Mark which is not accepted at Commons since it is not legally enforceable...and the copyright owner does not surrender any copyright over the license. Please ask a question at Common's copyright question website if you have a further question or ask the copyright owner to change the license to one of the three flickr options I mentioned. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:20, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I didn't know the difference between PD-Mark and CC0. I sent an email to them and waiting for their response. SlowManifesto (talk) 14:11, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Original Barnstar
For your great contributions and license reviews. SlowManifesto (talk) 10:29, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mushroom Observer tool[edit]

One advantage of this tool is that the template (with source,author...) is automatically generated and you know automatically if the image is already in Commons. --Leoboudv (talk) 07:13, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Daticamera.it[edit]

The question has already been resolved, so please talk with Majora and stop flooding my talk page, I do not want 633 notices on my talk page.

Also please, if it's consistent with the policy, remove those notices from my talk page, since I did not violate anyone's copyright. Those uploads were absolutely correct. Thank you. --Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 08:55, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stop flooding my talk page now and read the message above! Please, PLEASE, take five minutes to read the link I provided you and to talk to Majora and/or Ruthven. --Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 22:48, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: I know what you say. But after I filed a no source on one image Majora found the source for an image and passed it. So, I decided to do it this way. Anyway, I am done with this dati issue just now. Sorry for the problems. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 22:50, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are easy to find, so no need to put the files in deletion. @Sannita: I think that I've fixed most of them, but, if necessary, google "name surname site:dati.camera.it" and you should find the source. --Ruthven (msg) 22:55, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I missed these two below.

Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 02:34, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I knew that it would take about a week to fix all these images. I did not except multiple people to get in the way while doing so, making my job much harder in the process. These images are fine and marking them for deletion just puts unnecessary strain on my ability to properly review them. I've removed the remaining {{No source since}} tags from what's left. I know you have said that you are leaving them alone. Please do so and let me finish what I started. --Majora (talk) 03:50, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:39, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done, ✓ Done, and ✓ Done --Ruthven (msg) 08:03, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notification about possible deletion[edit]

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Affected:

And also:

Yours sincerely, Majora (talk) 04:02, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mynewsdesk.com[edit]

Hello Leoboudv,

I am here because I see that you have successfully passed the license review for File:Tingsrydtravet upplopp.jpg. Please note that mynewsdesk.com is listed at COM:Bad sources. When you see a file from that website, you should tag it with {{Npd}} or {{Nsd}} according to the instructions given at COM:Bad sources. You should not add {{LicenseReview}} to such files because the mentioned licenses are vague: they lack a version number (3 or 4) and a direct link to the legal web page of CC licenses at the official CC website. Please see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pinkman with Yannick Gingras.jpg for an example.

Thank you. 4nn1l2 (talk) 17:08, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment: On mynewsdesk, I once saw a photo album or gallery once where individual images were licensed as CC BY 3.0 but OK, I will tag it as npd next time 4nn1l2. I don't know if people know about image licenses there. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:05, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) Hi Leoboudv, The following discussions in March 2012, June 2012 and August 2012 are probably the most pertinent to mynewsdesk being listed a bad source. I also think I see what they have done though I have no idea when they made the change. Previously the Creative Commons link on their image pages was to the actual license, while now it just states that images have a CC license without stating which one. I distinctly remember some of the discussions where Yann was also a contributor but we currently have 5,000+ mynewsdesk images here of which 178 are in a category need review but another category contains 3,800+ images, so there must be another 1,000+ lying around somewhere that are not categorised as mynewsdesk sourced images. Perhaps there needs to be a new discussion about the validity of all those images because I assume, based on a quick look at a few images, the 3,800+ all have good license reviews, thought I was always suspicious of mynewsdesk's licensing. Let me know if you take this any further. Ww2censor (talk) 22:14, 13 April 2018 (UTC)'* Comment: Thanks for the links Ww2censor on mynewsdesk.com. I always had the sense that something was not quite right but the license seemed to be CC BY 3.0 so I reluctantly reviewed them. I have been busy with work these past 2 days to mark many images at all. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:21, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the so-called mynewsdesk Photogallery and on the "Link" you can actually acccess the image and click on the license...and it says CC BY 3.0. So that was how I justified passing images from this web site with the words CC Erkannande. But the strange thing I thought when I passed the images was that....the author/photographer was never named. My apologies, the photographer is Named but I don't know if these images are truly OK for Commons. Maybe you do....but I have the feeling this website owners don't understand copyright. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:30, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A quote for you[edit]

Be happy!
Be happy. Not because everything is perfect. But, because you choose to to focus on the perfect moments. Rafic.Mufid (talk) 19:25, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Public Domain Mark 1 is not accepted license[edit]

Please do not mark Flickr images tagged with this licence as "accepted". PDM is not PD nor CC 0! Check this template for example: Template:Flickr-public domain mark/en and explanations provided there. Masur (talk) 19:27, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment: I don't mark flickr images that are PDM on flickr unless they are from the US Federal Government or its agencies Masur or from foreign states whose laws say they are PD--in which case I pass them. Other images with these license from private accounts I fail them unless they have a valid OTRS ticket which I checked with an Administrator first. I just did not know that PDM images existed on Mushroom Observer like this case. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:32, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't even know what File:Michał Woś.JPG looks like or where it came from as I am not an Admin. Sorry, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:28, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • And I see that you "accepted" many other files coming from the same source (Chancellery of the Prime Minister of Poland FlickR account; many from here: Category:Files provided by Chancellery of the Prime Minister of Poland). Unfortunately in Poland there is nothing like "PD gov" in US, therefore releasing into PD needs to have a valid reason - for example an owner of Economic Rights of Authors can do it; or author itself when he is still the owner of these rights. But in all these cases, Chancellery of the Prime Minister of Poland fails to provide such justification and merely states (per license text): "[...] has been identified as being free of known restrictions under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights. " which untrue. Masur (talk) 08:32, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dear Masur,

I accepted the KPRM Chancellery of the Prime Minister of Poland flickr Polish images because I asked the experts on Commons around such as on the Admin noticeboard and I was told that these images were PD by law in Poland. So what was I to think? If you wish to stop accepting it, please tell Artur Andrez to stop uploading them. I did what I was advised to be told. I just asked somewhere a separate question over here on the copyright status of 2 images of Martin Bares & Petr Pleva. I don't act until the 'experts' give me advice and if the advice is wrong, then what can I say? I don't just pass images. It is almost 1:40 PM AM in Canada and I have to sign out soon after uploading a few images. Thank you Masur, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:40, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was Norden1990 who convinced me that images from KPRM was PD by law in Poland from this DR In future, I could approach a KPRM image in this way...as I did with individual private flickr accounts. But the problem is it looks like the flickr bot operators or the Admins have programmed their system to accept PDM images from the KPRM account as this pass and this pass shows. And they are recent passes--December 2017 and 2018. Have you seen this Februry 2018 pass So, they seem to be saying that KPRM is OK for PDM images but private individual accounts are not. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:05, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lil Pump in 2018.png - nominated for deletion[edit]

Hello Leoboudv, just a quick info for you as the image's license reviewer that I have nominated this file for deletion. The original YouTube source seems to embed copyrighted external content. This original copyright cannot be overwritten by a YouTube license for a video, that merely re-publishes the external copyrighted content without explicit permission. Please feel free to comment on the deletion discussion, in case I misunderstood the source situation. Regardless, thank you for all your efforts to review and upload images on Commons - it is greatly appreciated. GermanJoe (talk) 11:14, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Files[edit]

Hi Could you review :

--Panam2014 (talk) 03:03, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

+ File:Tareq Saleh.png --Panam2014 (talk) 19:08, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eva Karera copyviol[edit]

Why it shoul be a copyviol? If you look here here you can see that the attribution is CC BY 2.0, so a valid license for uploading the file. Could you please explain me why it has been deleted? Thanks.--Prugna (talk) 15:57, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment: The image comes from a flickrwashing account Prugna. The flickr account owner is just stealing pictures that he DOESN'T own the rights to and posting it to his flickr account on a free license. That's why. Its banned and illegal in international law and on Wikimedia Commons, --Leoboudv (talk) 18:30, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: This image came from catalinacruz.com not the TMT flickr account. So, TMT doesn't own the rights to that image and is stealing images from the web and posting it on his flickr account. --Leoboudv (talk) 18:33, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mistake in license review of File:Little Lea, Belfast - Geograph-2516556-by-Albert-Bridge.jpg[edit]

Hello. You recently reviewed the licence on the above file and marked it as passed, but the licence tag on the file was {{Cc-by-2.0}} and pictures on Geograph Ireland (including this one) are licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0. I've corrected the licence tag and removed your mistaken review. --bjh21 (talk) 17:52, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment: You are right bjh21. My mistake. The license logo looked like CC BY but when I took a much closer at it, it was CC BY SA 2.0. Thank for correcting my error. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:33, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) actually Leo, for geograph images its best to use their template {{geograph |1=PhotoID # |2=Copyright holder's name }}. Cheers Ww2censor (talk) 10:49, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews[edit]

Thanks for your effort. I really appreciate your job of review material. Only 16 minutes!. Best! :) --Docosong (talk) 09:16, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A BArnstar for You![edit]

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
For your hard work on dealing with Pixabay images!廣九直通車 (talk) 01:35, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question regarding some videos[edit]

Hi! I was just wondering if videos like this or this would be accepted on commons. I'm unsure so I figured I would ask before putting in the effort to upload images extracted from them.

Also, do you mind reviewing this image? It seems like Wikipedia generally prefers images to be reviewed before they're put to use, and I'd like to use it. Thanks. DanielleTH (talk) 21:46, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) @DanielleTH: both videos say "Do not re upload" in the description, I'd skip these. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 01:02, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Review[edit]

Hi Could you review the files here? --Panam2014 (talk) 20:44, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Moaddem.png and File:Moaddem2.png --Panam2014 (talk) 14:17, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And File:Moaddem1.png--Panam2014 (talk) 04:19, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can I help?[edit]

I'm asking you because you reviewed various images I uploaded or marked for review. I don't know where you stand on what I'm about to say.

I don't think I'm ever going to be accepted as a license reviewer. I don't know for sure to what degree you would trust me, but is there some way I could help? The backlog for videos is pretty huge. So for example, maybe I could check videos for derivative works and you could skip that check. I could also check other aspects, but since I don't expect to be accepted as a reviewer I can't actually review them. I'm not sure if there is a practical way I could help, but if you think there is let me know. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 21:56, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment: I am a busy person and have a job. You should ask an experienced Admin this question. I once review some videos as most times as I have too many images to review or have to work. Thanks, --Leoboudv (talk) 22:05, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I understand. Didn't mean to suggest you have too much time, just trying to help. I'd prefer to do it myself, but if my request is not accepted (and that seems a bit doubtful atm) I was hoping to be able to help/aid with the license reviewing somehow. As there now also is a support vote, I'll wait and see where my request goes. Maybe the first votes didn't set a trend after all. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 00:31, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your help on creating a talkpage archive. Funny, it seems you have more experience than me here. Perhaps you could increase your number of edits to win more support to be a license reviewer. I don't know you but have no problems with your work. But I respect Majora and if he/she objects to you being a license reviewer then there may some issues with your work that I don't know of. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:49, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have written something about what I think Majora's objections are (and why I don't think those objections should disqualify me for license reviewing), but since you mentioned them I will wait so Majora can speak first. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 01:43, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

License review[edit]

Hi, For images from the Indian government (using {{GODL-India}}), you should review them like this instead of this. Thanks for your help, Yann (talk) 19:00, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Zinedine Zidane by Tasnim 03.jpg[edit]

Hi, could you take another look at this license review? It looks like the photographer is Hadi Abyar, and a search for that name suggests he is with "Fars News Agency" rather than Tasnim. The Tasnim CC-BY 4.0 license is only for Tasnim's own agency photographers, so I don't think it applies. Guanaco (talk) 03:37, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment: The image is on a Tasnim source. What would you have me do Guanaco? --Leoboudv (talk) 03:41, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I would start a DR. When the source is Tasnim we have to determine if it's actually a photo from Tasnim, or shared from another news agency. They are generous in licensing their own works, but they also use syndicated content from other organizations. This has been a frequent source of confusion, unfortunately, and there's no easy solution. Guanaco (talk) 03:47, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dear Guanaco,

Since most images on Commons by Hadi Abyar are on Tasnim, perhaps you should launch a DR by yourself. One would think that Hadi works for Tasnim from this evidence. I don't have an appetite here and to me Fars and Tasnim are both Iranian government agencies. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 03:53, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've discovered that Fars News Agency also licenses their content under CC BY 4.0, so I'm convinced these are fine to keep. Guanaco (talk) 04:03, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) @Guanaco: Some photographers work for more than one agency. As long as photos are credited to a person they are fine. (I haven't found a case yet of a photo that had a black credit border with the name of a person that wasn't freely licensed) Also, we have {{Fars}}. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 08:59, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ukrainian license[edit]

{{Kmu.gov.ua}}

Licens ok ?[edit]

Linces form picture owner under image are change are the case so close ? Linces https://gallery.srichinmoycentre.org/members/kedar/chinmoysports/Chinmoy-Running From https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sri-Chinmoy-Zurich.jpg --Richard Reinhardt (talk) 04:27, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I closed the DR as "keep". De728631 (talk) 16:23, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Copyright inspector Barnstar
For your tireless work as a licence reviewer. Keep up the great job! De728631 (talk) 16:18, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

foot...[edit]

Hello dear Leoboudv, are not you watching the football match? Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:54, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

me it's evening and I can watch the match... Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:00, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
during France-Urugway I was at job but we could have a break and I managed to see the second half of the game. Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:08, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Russian coach doesn't look very friendly... yes the popularity of a sport depend from the country culture. Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:16, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
do a good job, see you soon Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:22, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question about CC0 and PD[edit]

Hello there! I saw the message i putted in two of the images that I upped from Flickr [9] and [10], but I didn't get the whole thing. The Image was posted by the person in the Photo as PD, still it can't be in the wikimedia database? It was during an eveent of his Political Party. Thanks for the help, Paladinum2 (talk) 15:03, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) @Paladinum2: COM:PDM, in short: PDM is not a license, just a way to tag (for example) very old works. To release a work into the public domain, instruct the author to use CC0 instead. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 16:50, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see, so they will be deleted, nothing I can do about it, but at least I learned this. Thanks. Paladinum2 (talk) 04:15, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Paladinum2: If works from political parties in the source country are excluded from copyright, PD-mark may be right. But on Commons PD-mark always needs to be replaced with the appropriate PD-tag (PD-old-70, PD-1923, PD-GermanGov, etc). If there is none, the PD-mark sadly isn't valid. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 15:18, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Leoboudv Alexis Jazz quiere borrar las imágenes .[edit]

--Ixqeo (talk) 22:54, 27 July 2018 (UTC)Leoboudv Alexis Jazz borrará las que tú aprobaste por favor resuélvelo[reply]

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hector_Suarez.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Alberto_Palazuelos.jpg

This can't be right[edit]

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:People_in_Iran_Celebrate_Nature_Day-3.jpg&diff=298289414&oldid=298221757

Copy/paste error? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 15:10, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tasnim works not attributed to an individual person[edit]

Hi Leoboudv. Thanks for all your hard work. There is one thing that I want to mention. Please do not give a good review for Tasnim works which are not attributed explicitly to one of agency's in-house photographers (this ought to be an individual person). Commons:Deletion requests/File:Jameh Mosque of Gorgan.jpg is a clear case which proves the news agency is not as professional as they should be. Regards 4nn1l2 (talk) 11:07, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source provided[edit]

File:NTR jr.png has been edited the source has been corrected please review and dispherse deletion request please. Ashwini Gadade (talk) 13:43, 14 August 2018 (UTC) Ashwini Gadade (talk) 13:48, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Images to review[edit]

Hi Leoboudv, I've been on holidays and therefore unable to review anything. I'm up and running again --Discasto talk 18:59, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pexels[edit]

Just checking, are you aware of the Pexels discussions?

Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#uploads from pexels.com really o.k.?

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Pexels CFU - Alexis Jazz ping plz 19:36, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pexels license change: July 4, 2018 --Leoboudv (talk) 03:04, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1 image[edit]

Hello Leoboudv, it's unusual for me to come ask you this, the roles are reversed. Can you review this image please? sadly it's the only one in this series that have a BY icone, it's the last one in the series. Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:55, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

great, thank you very much, and good night in BC Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:13, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

video[edit]

Hello, when you have time, can you review this video please? File:Eight armed Cushion Star, Meridiastra calcar.webm

Regards, Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:16, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Media from Hollywood To You[edit]

Hi It is the time to delete the files. What do you think? --Panam2014 (talk) 17:27, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

..hey.. you're no admin! - Alexis Jazz ping plz 20:52, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Alexis Jazz: the licence have been changed, some video have been deleted and according to WeybackMachine, for videos uploaded in 2016, the licence was not really free. --Panam2014 (talk) 21:11, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2 videos[edit]

Dear Leoboudv, when you have time can you review these videos please?

File:Seastar, Nectria ocellata.webm
File:Seastar, Nectria macrobrachia.webm

Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:30, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Hawk[edit]

https://www.nickhawkexplicit.com/bio

Would this image pass license review? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 15:08, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. So it's not just me. The file was deleted and I don't think that was needed in this case. I will visit UDR later. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 20:32, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gauri Lankesh.jpg[edit]

Just a heads up: EXIF data was missing when you reviewed the file, but it was available at the source. If case you do find some files like this, consider uploading the original file.
acagastya 10:07, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is it the right license?[edit]

Leoboudv I would like to know if the PD-text logo license that I chose for the image is the correct one, if it is not, please I would like you to help me https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:CNCO.svg&action=edit&section=2 --Derasu (talk) 17:33, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Approve my image[edit]

Leoboudv please approve my image what is creative commons https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Franco_Escamilla_animado.jpg --Derasu (talk) 16:51, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Video for an article[edit]

Leoboudv please can you approve my video?, it's creative commons https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:El_Komander_-_La_Corona_(En_Vivo_2017).webm --Derasu (talk) 19:05, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question about stroi.mos.ru[edit]

I saw that you reviewed the license of this pic: File:Строительство Бусиновской развязки в Москве • 2.jpg. I´ve found many interesting pics in different gallery´s of stroi.mos.ru. All cc-4.0 ? Or different one for each gallery? I haven´t found information´s about at the Website. Can you help me? ....HMS (talk) 02:52, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment: If it is a mos.ru image, the license is cc by 4.0. Russia made those images free...as long as there are no sculptures in it as Russia has FOP for buildings (including dams) but No Freedom Of Panorama for Modern artwork including sculptures...unless the artist died more than 70 years ago. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 04:53, 15 September 2018 (UTC) Thanks ....HMS (talk) 05:59, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Files Bernard Deyriès & Jean Chalopin[edit]

Hello, Leoboudv.

I sent the informations yesterday to the copyright owner, so he'll send the appropriate OTRS mail very soon (I hope !). :-)

Best regards. --Guise (talk) 18:47, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright[edit]

This section is for copyright. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:56, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Third party opinion[edit]

Hi Leoboudv, I pinged you Discasto's page before. Could you please intervene here as a third opinion? This is wasting a lot of time, and it looks pretty irrational. Check this [11], for the last edit by the above editor. You can also follow the discussion. Sorry if this is not a right place to ask this. Thanks Iñaki LL (talk) 16:22, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Funny thing, there has been a third party opinion. As such opinion didn't support Iñaki's, he kept edit warring and now doing some forum shopping. Sorry, Leoboudv, if you have to waste your time here. --Discasto talk 18:02, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What the... "As such opinion didn't support Iñaki's", hahah, this is surreal really. Good thing there is the edit history for everyone to see (edits summaries, edit warring, attitudes, and actual edits). Iñaki LL (talk) 18:49, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Approval of images[edit]

Leoboudv please approve the following images:https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Zion_%26_Lennox_con_J_%C3%81lvarez.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Zion.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Derasu (talk • contribs) 19:40, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image[edit]

Leoboudv could you please help me to upload an image of this page, is the actor of the image that I uploaded that was the year of 1954, I found this page but I do not know how to upload an image or that license to put, so I ask you because I think if you know, please help me http://tusamigosenmexico.tumblr.com/post/33439977717/clavillazo --Derasu (talk) 18:37, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment: I cannot because it is a 1950's image and NONE of use are the copyright owners. Nowhere is there a license given for this image. There is no indication of a free license....in fact it says at the bottom "©2012–2018." This image would be a copyright violation on Commons. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 23:10, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why this sock hasn't been blocked yet. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 20:56, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
True, but no different from Sol-lol, Ixqeo, etc. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 23:59, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Suspected sock. Be careful. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 20:25, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question about YouTube[edit]

Hello Leoboudv. Exactly in what part of the YouTube page can I see if the video is available under CCA 3.0? Like this screenshot File:Cardi B 2016.jpg. I'm trying to find a more recent video/screenshot to update the article's profile pic. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 15:45, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Stifterverband YouTube screenshots[edit]

These were all taken from the thumbnails of the YouTube videos. I adapted my script for YouTube channel scanning to get them from the videos that have a free license. --Vera (talk) 19:54, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

good luck with your studies 👍️Vera (talk) 20:34, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Flickr account[edit]

Hi. What happened to your Flickr account?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:03, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image reviewing[edit]

Fyi File:Zac Efron and Zendaya in 2017.jpg MTV is not the copyright holder of the artwork, so this should've been cropped \ blurred before any review is passed.--BevinKacon (talk) 12:46, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Approve my videos please.[edit]

@Leoboudv: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dar_reversa_al_gasolinazo_es_Amar_a_M%C3%A9xico_-_Movimiento_Ciudadano.webm https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Movimiento_Naranja_-_Yuawi_-_Movimiento_Ciudadano.webm Please--Werxa (talk) 21:28, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Leoboudv: Could you approve my minimalist image please?https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Angelique_Fr.svg --Werxa (talk) 23:51, 7 November 2018 (UTC) @Leoboudv: approve this other imagen please https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Angelique_Boyer.svg --Werxa (talk) 20:34, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Leoboudv/Archive_2&oldid=521771168"